Liberal Catholics

[dairygirl4u2c]

liberalism became rampant, simply because people began realizing they were all the same. no reason to deny silly social customs. liberalism then becomes hedonism when it goes too far. really, what transpired is society evolving into it's natural state, which christians would refer to as its worldly ways. hedonism, and liberal thought have always existed. it just was suppressed and behind closed doors, morally and economically.

[Aloysius]

oh please. so apparently now if I use the term "purpose", I must inherently be implying some sort of conspiracy. Your inferences are way off, dude. Purpose does not imply intent in the context I used it. You're just being ridiculous.

it was the mass media market that spread things. it was the culture that they were tempted to join in, a culture whose purpose was to feed an ever growing market. those people were tempted because they wanted to be full members of their society, they wanted to fit in with their culture, so they went with the flow; a flow which had the clear sociological purpose of strengthening that which our culture holds most dear--the market. things have certainly been going in that direction since the industrial revolution, but the massive shift in the past few decades clearly cemented the place of the market in its level of importance for our society.

"sociological purpose": the reason the society as a whole does something. this is why our society as a whole has abandoned the old restrictions on appetites; because before our society valued restraint, and now our society values the market, so it shed the old restraints.

free-love hippies were a huge minority of people, the image and idea of their unrestricted free appetites was spread and tempted the whole society into a state in which they were vulnerable to be manipulated by the market.

[Mercy me]

I guess that I see things differently. You see a world filled with liberal Catholics and I see Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Rick Santorum. These guys all give me hope.

[infinitelord1]

The truth is people...that abortion will always exist whether its legalized or not. Homosexuals will always exist whether its legal or not. Things that liberals stand and that you dont agree with are always gonna exist. By making laws against these things you are only gonna just push these things into the shadow.

People are always gonna have their belief system. Liberals can't take that away. I dont believe any liberal wishes to take away religion from people. You may find that more liberals (than you think) believe abortion is wrong yet they stand for legalizing abortion. The way I see it...by making things like abortion and homosexuality illegal...you are taking away free will. We should have the right to make choices (like these) based on our freedom to believe in what we believe in. If you believe abortion or homosexuality is wrong then you wont do it. There are people who experience same sex attraction that dont commit homosexual acts. Treating people poorly and telling them they cant marry the same sex isnt gonna change anything. Homosexuals will always exist. The only way to counter such an issue is to accept the fact that homosexuals exist and that they deserve fair treatment like anyone else. You have the freedom to counsel them, and guide them on a path that God wants for them. Nobody really does this though. Instead they talk about how gays should be shot, banned, etc.

Evil and differences in belief are always gonna exist. You cant just make attempts to prevent them.

[Winchester]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1415377' date='Nov 6 2007, 09:17 AM']If you believe abortion or homosexuality is wrong then you wont do it.
Evil and differences in belief are always gonna exist. You cant just make attempts to prevent them.[/quote]
This logic taken to its conclusion is an argument for anarchy.

Simply saying: "Don't have an abortion if you think abortion is wrong," is as ridiculous as saying: "Don't own a slave if you think slavery is wrong."

Those who oppose abortion believe the unborn is a person. Abortion is murder to them. To ask them to simply ignore murder is idiocy.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1415257' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:13 AM']oh please. so apparently now if I use the term "purpose", I must inherently be implying some sort of conspiracy. Your inferences are way off, dude. Purpose does not imply intent in the context I used it. You're just being ridiculous.[/quote]
"Purpose" always implies intent. For instance, to say that I started a fire for the purpose of burning the house down, this would imply that my intent was to burn down the house. If burning down the house was an unintended accident, one would not say that was my purpose, even if it was the end result.

[quote]it was the mass media market that spread things. it was the culture that they were tempted to join in, a culture whose purpose was to feed an ever growing market. those people were tempted because they wanted to be full members of their society, they wanted to fit in with their culture, so they went with the flow; a flow which had the clear sociological purpose of strengthening that which our culture holds most dear--the market. things have certainly been going in that direction since the industrial revolution, but the massive shift in the past few decades clearly cemented the place of the market in its level of importance for our society.

"sociological purpose": the reason the society as a whole does something. this is why our society as a whole has abandoned the old restrictions on appetites; because before our society valued restraint, and now our society values the market, so it shed the old restraints.

free-love hippies were a huge minority of people, the image and idea of their unrestricted free appetites was spread and tempted the whole society into a state in which they were vulnerable to be manipulated by the market.[/quote]
You have still not provided any convincing argument for your case. Your posts speak in extremely vague abstractions - "the mass media market," "sociological purpose" - yet you provide no specifics to back up your argument.

"The market" refers simply to supply and demand, buying and selling - something which exists in any human society. It in itself has no subversive purpose or intent. It cannot account for a change of morals or loss of religious faith.
You are confusing "the market" with materialism. The problem is bad philosophy, not the market itself.
Yes, when people abandon religious morals, other things tend to take first priority, usually hedonistic sensual pleasure and accumulating material wealth.
And yes, when people abandon themselves to their appetites, they are more easily manipulated, whether into buying carp they don't need, or voting Democrat, or becoming a Marxist Communist.

However, "the market" fails to account for the original loss of faith and morals in the first place.
As I've pointed out, the market has always been around.
The market was in fact much more free 100 years ago than 50 years ago, or today. Yet most of us would not find the mores of ca. 1907 America hedonistic, but rather prudish.
The problem isn't religion vs the market, but religion vs materialism.

And while children of the 60s counterculture revolution went disproportionately into media and entertainment, and thus helped influence the culture, neither "the market" nor "the media" of the 1950s can be blamed for the original revolution.

Culture and morality are the products of freely-acting human beings, not of impersonal economic forces.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1415377' date='Nov 6 2007, 10:17 AM']The truth is people...that abortion will always exist whether its legalized or not. Homosexuals will always exist whether its legal or not. Things that liberals stand and that you dont agree with are always gonna exist. By making laws against these things you are only gonna just push these things into the shadow.

People are always gonna have their belief system. Liberals can't take that away. I dont believe any liberal wishes to take away religion from people. You may find that more liberals (than you think) believe abortion is wrong yet they stand for legalizing abortion. The way I see it...by making things like abortion and homosexuality illegal...you are taking away free will. We should have the right to make choices (like these) based on our freedom to believe in what we believe in. If you believe abortion or homosexuality is wrong then you wont do it. There are people who experience same sex attraction that dont commit homosexual acts. Treating people poorly and telling them they cant marry the same sex isnt gonna change anything. Homosexuals will always exist. The only way to counter such an issue is to accept the fact that homosexuals exist and that they deserve fair treatment like anyone else. You have the freedom to counsel them, and guide them on a path that God wants for them. Nobody really does this though. Instead they talk about how gays should be shot, banned, etc.

Evil and differences in belief are always gonna exist. You cant just make attempts to prevent them.[/quote]
The truth is people...that murder will always exist whether it's legal or not.
Theft will always exist whether it's legal or not.
Rape will always exist whether it's legal or not.

Does this mean all of these things should be legalized, just because people do them?
The only logical conclusion to your argument is absolute anarchy.

It is absurd to argue "you can't legislate morality." All law "legislates morality" by its very nature. It is immoral to murder another human being, and thus murder should never be legal, no matter how common it is.
Abortion is a form of murder, and thus should be illegal. If the law does not protect defenseless human life, then it is worthless.

I'll use your own words to illustrate my point (subsituting "murder" and "theft" for "abortion" and "homosexuality"):
"People are always gonna have their belief system. Liberals can't take that away. I dont believe any liberal wishes to take away religion from people. You may find that more liberals (than you think) believe murder is wrong yet they stand for legalizing murder. The way I see it...by making things like murder and theft illegal...you are taking away free will. We should have the right to make choices (like these) based on our freedom to believe in what we believe in. If you believe murder or theft is wrong then you wont do it. There are people who experience kleptomania that don't commit theft. Treating people poorly and telling them they can't take all they like in the store for free isnt gonna change anything. Thieves will always exist. The only way to counter such an issue is to accept the fact that thieves exist and that they deserve fair treatment like anyone else. You have the freedom to counsel them, and guide them on a path that God wants for them. Nobody really does this though. Instead they talk about how thieves should be shot, jailed, etc."

And as far as I know nobody is seriously talking about shooting homosexuals. Not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" is a completely different issue. Even if you say that homosexuals are free to sodomize one another in their homes if they so choose, this does not mean that society owes them legal benefits for doing so.

It seems you are simply mouthing liberal propaganda you've heard. Start thinking in accord with moral truth instead.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

so if I say the purpose of a society doing something is x, that means there are actually a group of shadowy people intending x? that the purpose of a Giraffe's long neck is so it can reach the leaves, that necessarily implies some intention on the part of the Giraffes during their evolution? no, "purpose" can be used not to refer to reasoned intentions of humans, it can refer to non-humans.

I stand by everything I've said and think you've just picked a ridiculous battle that makes no sense whatsoever. Insisting that instead of using "market" I say "materialism" is absurd, materialism is when people place the "market" at the center of their cultural existence... perhaps I should use the ridiculous abstraction Christ used and simply say "mammon"

I'm talking about what caused it to spread; and it wasn't spread by effective intellectual arguments or reasoning; it was spread by the change in our culture towards unrestricted appetite; and the culture changed that way because of the driving power of the market... no conspiracies in smokey rooms orchestrating it necessarily, simply a complete and total shift in the cultural viewpoint.

The market is an aspect of a culture. Modern society has made it the central aspect of their culture, the way religion was the central aspect of medieval culture (though a marxist theorist would say the market was always the center of all cultures... interestingly enough so would a capitalist theorist). That was the temptation which undermined the strict religious upbringing of that generation: a culture of unrestricted free appetite fueled by and fueling the market; to join in on the party, it was necessary to shed the old value system.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1415650' date='Nov 7 2007, 04:13 AM']so if I say the purpose of a society doing something is x, that means there are actually a group of shadowy people intending x? that the purpose of a Giraffe's long neck is so it can reach the leaves, that necessarily implies some intention on the part of the Giraffes during their evolution? no, "purpose" can be used not to refer to reasoned intentions of humans, it can refer to non-humans.[/quote]
Purpose in nature to me reflects an intelligent Creator, but what do I know, I'm one of them religious nuts. ;-)

[quote]I stand by everything I've said and think you've just picked a ridiculous battle that makes no sense whatsoever. Insisting that instead of using "market" I say "materialism" is absurd, materialism is when people place the "market" at the center of their cultural existence... perhaps I should use the ridiculous abstraction Christ used and simply say "mammon"

I'm talking about what caused it to spread; and it wasn't spread by effective intellectual arguments or reasoning; it was spread by the change in our culture towards unrestricted appetite; and the culture changed that way because of the driving power of the market... no conspiracies in smokey rooms orchestrating it necessarily, simply a complete and total shift in the cultural viewpoint.

The market is an aspect of a culture. Modern society has made it the central aspect of their culture, the way religion was the central aspect of medieval culture (though a marxist theorist would say the market was always the center of all cultures... interestingly enough so would a capitalist theorist). That was the temptation which undermined the strict religious upbringing of that generation: a culture of unrestricted free appetite fueled by and fueling the market; to join in on the party, it was necessary to shed the old value system.[/quote]
You can call it ridiculous, call it whatever, but I think the distinction between [i]materialism[/i] and [i]the market[/i] is a very important one. If this distinction is not made, reasoning gets sloppy.

Let's look at the defintions of these two words relevent to this dicussion:

[b][url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/market"]The market[/url][/b]: the area of economic activity in which buyers and sellers come together and the forces of supply and demand affect prices

[b][url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism"]Materialism[/url][/b]: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress
[b]or[/b]
a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

(Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster)

Note that "the market" is something morally-neutral and valueless, but simply refers to economic activity, something that exists in any human society. It is simply the exchange of goods, and is what puts food on our plates and clothes on our backs (unless we are living completely self-sufficiently alone in the wilderness).

Materialism, on the other hand, is a philosophy or mindframe.
The problem we are discussing is [i]materialism[/i] - the idea that only our material wealth and well-being is important - not the market, which is simply the exchange of goods and money.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1414911' date='Nov 5 2007, 03:13 PM']I was careless, and so I made careless errors. I typed and posted without properly editing. It's not easier to do that in this medium, it's just it's common to not police oneself.

The sentence would have been "is" because it was to have read: "You're and your transposition is not..." and so on. But I did not edit, I wrote and posted. However, the constant misuse of words involving commas indicates that sin has no idea how to use them properly. And when someone is going to criticize another, one should be ready to be picked at. It's simply part of the game. Taking up for such a humorless person as sin only reinforces his notion that he is above reproach.

I know dUsT personally, and he is an extremely sober person and takes the language very seriously. One might say he lacks humor in this area. He is an avid reader of William Safire's weeken column "On Language." I assure you his intent was purely educational. A frontal lobe injury suffered during a BMX racing accident has left him quite unable to render taunting in the printed form. In person, he is very playful, but with written things, he is notably grim. To watch him write is to study the depths of human sobriety.[/quote]

[Lena]

[quote]People are always gonna have their belief system. Liberals can't take that away. I dont believe any liberal wishes to take away religion from people. You may find that more liberals (than you think) believe abortion is wrong yet they stand for legalizing abortion. The way I see it...by making things like abortion and homosexuality illegal...you are taking away free will. We should have the right to make choices (like these) based on our freedom to believe in what we believe in. If you believe abortion or homosexuality is wrong then you wont do it. There are people who experience same sex attraction that dont commit homosexual acts. Treating people poorly and telling them they cant marry the same sex isnt gonna change anything. Homosexuals will always exist. The only way to counter such an issue is to accept the fact that homosexuals exist and that they deserve fair treatment like anyone else. You have the freedom to counsel them, and guide them on a path that God wants for them. Nobody really does this though. Instead they talk about how gays should be shot, banned, etc.[/quote]

Even though I disagree with you about the abortion issue, I do think the way society treats homosexuals (and there is a stigma attached) should be more accepting. I don't know anything about "being shot" although the Matthew Shepard case comes to mind as an (extreme?) example.

[Aloysius]

So... where have I condemned "the market"? I condemned what "the market" was doing, and the culture which placed "the market" at the center of itself (that is the very essence of materialism), but I didn't condemn the idea of a market (you're still chasing marxist straw-men) just sugested that it ought to be governed by morality. Indeed, the market may do immoral things.

materialism is a philosophy which, when it is embraced by a society, means placing the market at the center and pinnacle of their culture. You're still making ridiculous arguments.

There's no sloppy reasoning, I made it clear: the market is doing things which are immoral, the materialist culture is placinng the market at the center of their value system, and all of these thinngs overall represent a sociological shift which tempted an entire generation into the idea of unrestricted appetites; because they wanted to be part of their society and that's the direction their society takes.

anyway, if we're going to get metaphysical to explain intentions; it was satan who had the intentionn behind the sociological purpose I mentioned.. Happy now, we estabished a beinng with intention; that doesnt change the fact that "purpose" does not linguistically immply inntention, just because you can abstract away an intention out of anything by appealing to our philosophical system and our beleifs; because then there really is a reasoned intention to everything and I could insist that every verb implied a reasoned intention.